Ganiaris v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganiaris v. Gonzalez

26 A.D.2d 534, 271 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 534 (Ganiaris v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ganiaris v. Gonzalez, 26 A.D.2d 534, 271 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered June 15, 1965, granting partial sum[535]*535mary judgment to defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of providing that the Special Referee take proof of damages, if any, arising from the breach of the partnership agreement consequent on the decedent’s sale of the partnership property, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants-respondents’ surrebuttal brief concedes “the real estate in question was partnership property, Clara Sheridan’s interest in it was as a tenant in partnership, and not as a tenant in common”. The purported sale by the decedent was a breach of the partnership agreement giving rise to an action for damages on the part of the plaintiff. (Burnstine v. Geist, 257 App. Div. 792, 793-794.) Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Bastow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order entered June 15, 1965, granting partial sum[535]*535mary judgment to defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of providing that the Special Referee take proof of damages, if any, arising from the breach of the partnership agreement consequent on the decedent’s sale of the partnership property, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. Defendants-respondents’ surrebuttal brief concedes “the real estate in question was partnership property, Clara Sheridan’s interest in it was as a tenant in partnership, and not as a tenant in common”. The purported sale by the decedent was a breach of the partnership agreement giving rise to an action for damages on the part of the plaintiff. (Burnstine v. Geist, 257 App. Div. 792, 793-794.) Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 534, 271 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganiaris-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack